FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

American First Action, Inc. (“AFA”) is a pro-Trump super PAC. During the 2020 election 

cycle, it spent just under $134 million on ads opposing Joe Biden.1 As a super PAC, AFA receives 

and spends money from sources prohibited from contributing directly to campaign committees and 

well in excess of the limits governing campaign contributions. For example, during the 2020 cycle 

AFA received $21 million from a related dark money section 501(c)(4) entity, America First 

Policies, Inc. (“AFP”).2 

The Complaints in these matters allege that AFA and AFP were established by and acting on 

behalf of Trump and his campaign committee. It is illegal for federal candidates, their agents, and 

entities directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf 

of one or more candidates to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with a 

federal election unless those funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 

requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”).3 

The allegations are based on multiple reports suggesting the America First groups worked 

closely with the Trump campaign. For example, in December 2016, shortly after the 2016 election, 

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway made public the plan to form a nonprofit 

1 See America First Action, Inc., spending overview https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00637512/?tab=spending 

(last visited June 4, 2021). Prior to 2020, the group reported spending more than $29 million for independent 

expenditures to influence the 2018 midterm elections. Id. 2 See America First Action, Inc., raising overview filtered by contributor, https://www.fec.gov/data/individualcontributions/?committee_id=C00637512&contributor_name=america+first&contributor_name=america+first+policy&

two_year_transaction_period=2020 (last visited June 4, 2021). 3 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e).

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matters of

Great America Committee and Cabell 

Hobbs as treasurer; America First 

Policies, Inc.; America First Action, Inc. 

and Jon Proch as treasurer; President 

Donald J. Trump; Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. and Bradley T. Crate as 

treasurer; Vice President Michael R. 

Pence; Republican National Committee 

and Ronald C. Kaufman as treasurer; 

Parscale Strategy, LLC; Bradley J. 

Parscale; MO Strategies, Inc.; Marty Obst

)

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 

 MURs 7340 and 7609 

 

 

MUR734000611
MURs 7340 and 7609 (Great America Committee, et al.)

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub 

Page 2 of 3 

organization to bolster the new administration’s political and policy goals. She reportedly said it 

would be important for the organization to be run by someone “close to the president” and was at 

that time considering whether she would join the White House or run the organization.4 And, 

Complainants claim that Brad Parscale and Corey Lewandowski worked for both the Trump 

campaign and AFA or AFP. 

Parscale in particular appears to have worked closely with both the campaign and the AF 

entities. He was a senior staffer for the 2016 and 2020 Trump campaigns and is a reported founder 

of AFP.5 His consulting firm has been retained at various times by AFP, AFA, and the Trump 

campaign.6

 As Digital and Data Director for the 2016 campaign, Parscale boasted about his success 

overseeing the campaign’s large online fundraising program.7 His role as a senior advisor continued 

after the campaign. He appears to have been on the campaign’s payroll around the time of AFP’s 

formation, with his last paycheck dated four days after the founding of AFP. After that his firm 

continued to receive disbursements from the campaign.8

 A trusted senior advisor, he returned as 

campaign manager of the 2020 Trump campaign in February 2018.9

 

If Parscale was an agent of Trump or the campaign when he reportedly established AFP, or 

if he or any other agent of Trump or the campaign established, financed, maintained, or controlled 

the AF entities, it would be illegal for those groups to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend 

money not subject to the Act’s limits and prohibitions (i.e., “soft” money) in connection with a 

federal election, as they did. The AF entities, Trump, and the Trump committee would all have 

violated the law’s soft money prohibitions. 

The reports of campaign agents establishing the America First groups, overlapping staff 

between the groups and campaign staff, and public statements from campaign officials regarding 

campaign staff involvement provide sufficient reason to believe Respondents committed the alleged 

violations. I voted accordingly.10 “Reason to believe” is a threshold determination that does not 

itself establish that the law has been violated. The Commission has stated that it will find reason to 

believe “in cases where the available evidence in the matter is at least sufficient to warrant 

conducting an investigation, and where the seriousness of the alleged violation warrants either 

further investigation or immediate conciliation” – as was the case here.11 

Complainants also allege that the Trump campaign itself impermissibly solicited soft money 

for AFA. On May 17, 2019, the Trump campaign issued the following public statement warning 

against “scam groups” using Trump’s name to raise funds: 

4 Matea Gold and Ed O’Keefe, New pro-Trump group takes form, with Kellyanne Conway possibly at the helm, 

WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 5, 2016), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postpolitics/wp/2016/12/05/new-pro-trump-group-takes-form-with-kellyanne-conway-possibly-at-the-helm/. 5 See First General Counsel’s Report in MURs 7340 and 7609 (Great America Committee, et al.) (“FGCR”) at 5-7 and 

internal citations.

6

 See id. at 7. 7 See, e.g., Holly Ellyatt, How I helped get Trump elected: The president’s digital guru, CNBC (Nov. 8, 2017), 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/how-i-helped-get-trump-elected-the-presidents-digital-guru-brad-parscale.html. 8 See FGCR at 14; Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., spending summary, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00580100/?tab=spending&cycle=2016. 9 See FGCR at 6-7. 10 See Certification in MURs 7340 and 7609 (Great America Committee, et al.) (April 20, 2021). 11 72 F.R. 12545, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement 

Process (Mar. 16, 2007).

MUR734000612
MURs 7340 and 7609 (Great America Committee, et al.)

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub 

Page 3 of 3 

There are only four official fundraising organizations authorized by President Trump or the 

RNC: Donald J. Trump for President, the Republican National Committee, and two joint 

fundraising committees with the RNC, The Make America Great Again Committee 

(TMAGAC) and Trump Victory. In addition, there is one approved outside non-campaign 

group, America First Action, which is run by allies of the President and is a trusted 

supporter of President Trump’s policies and agendas.12

Complainants argue, and I agree, that this statement illegally solicited or directed soft money 

for AFA. The Trump committee asserts that it “merely provid[ed] the identity of an appropriate 

recipient, without any attempt to motivate another person to contribute or donate funds” and that 

such a statement is not a solicitation.13 But, as the Commission’s nonpartisan Office of General 

Counsel concluded, referring to AFA as an “approved” group in the context of fundraising is a clear 

message recommending that the reader contribute to the authorized and approved fundraising 

organizations and not contribute to other groups.14 I therefore voted to find reason to believe that 

the Trump campaign solicited soft money contributions. 

 I also voted to find reason to believe that AFP made, and the Trump campaign accepted, 

illegal coordinated expenditures in the form of disbursements for polling expenses. Complainants 

allege that AFP conducted polls about Trump in coordination with the campaign. This allegation is 

based on the following: the campaign reported no disbursements for polling during the relevant 

period; AFP used Kellyanne Conway’s polling firm; AFP consultants Parscale and Lewandowski 

reportedly attended a White House meeting to discuss the 2018 mid-term elections; and AFP posted 

the polling results on a relatively obscure website and then took the results down after reporters 

inquired about the polls.15 Given these facts, an investigation was warranted to determine whether 

the campaign coordinated with AFP. 

These matters involve many varied and complex allegations, but they all share one common 

theme: The Trump campaign benefitting from a super PAC working closely with alleged agents of 

the campaign. Prohibitions on soliciting soft money and coordinating with super PACs are core 

provisions of the FECA. Limits and prohibitions on candidate contributions become meaningless if 

campaigns can work with outside groups financed in large part by dark money. Nevertheless, two of 

my colleagues voted to dismiss the matters entirely.16 With one recusal, once again, the 

Commission did not have the required four votes to even investigate allegations of potentially 

multi-million dollar violations. 

 June 11, 2021 __________________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

 Commissioner 

12 See FGCR at 9. 13 See id. at 9-10. 14 See id. at 27. 15 See id. at 20-21. 16 See Certification in MURs 7340 and 7609 (Great America Committee, et al.) (April 22, 2021).

MUR734000613